Andrew Hiram Robinson

The applicant sought declarations relating to a $2 million bank draft that had been lost after issuance.

It requested that the draft be declared void and that the issuing bank return the funds without requiring an indemnity.

The respondent bank argued that the draft created ongoing risk because it remained a negotiable instrument and could potentially be presented through fraud, mistake, or negligence.

The court held that the transaction should remain risk‑free to the issuing bank and that commercial certainty favours requiring indemnity and security before issuing a replacement instrument.

The application was dismissed, with the bank remaining willing to issue a duplicate draft upon provision of adequate indemnity and security under the Bills of Exchange Act.

The court considered whether a single-purpose corporate purchaser seeking specific performance after a failed land transaction was exempt from the mitigation principle in contract damages.

The majority held that incorporation benefits carry corresponding burdens, including reasonable mitigation efforts where substitute opportunities are available.

It concluded the purchaser lacked a substantial and legitimate basis to avoid mitigation and that the evidentiary record supported available comparable development opportunities.

The dissent would have restored trial damages, finding no palpable and overriding error on mitigation opportunity and reasonableness.

The appeal and cross-appeal were both dismissed, leaving the appellate reduction to nominal damages in place.

Following the release of the main appeal decision, the respondent requested a reconsideration based on information in the appellants' trial counsel's time dockets.

The Court of Appeal declined the request, finding the new information did not alter its conclusion regarding the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence.

The Court awarded trial costs of $50,000 to the appellant Alexander N. Kovachis.

The landlord terminated a commercial head lease and locked out the tenant, which prevented the subtenant from using the exterior wall for advertising.

The subtenant sued the landlord for the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations and economic interests.

The trial judge found the landlord liable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that the trial judge erred in equating the foreseeability of harm to the subtenant with an intention to injure.

The evidence did not establish that the landlord knew of the subtenant or intended to harm it when the decision to terminate the head lease was made.

The appellants, who engaged in 'assessment farming' on lands zoned for employment and commercial uses, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for an exemption from a municipal zoning by-law under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The Board granted the exemption, but the Divisional Court set aside the decision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's decision, holding that the Act protects normal farm practices on agricultural lands but does not grant the Board jurisdiction to override municipal zoning by-laws that prohibit farming as a land use.

The Court of Appeal previously allowed the defendant's appeal, reducing the plaintiff's damages for breach of contract from $1,935,500 to nominal damages of $1 due to a failure to mitigate.

In this costs endorsement, the court applied the cost consequences of Rule 49.10(2) because the plaintiff obtained a judgment less favourable than the defendant's pre-trial offer to settle for $100,000.

The defendant was awarded net partial indemnity costs of $400,000.

The appellant school board breached an agreement of purchase and sale by failing to use its best efforts to obtain a severance for a parcel of land.

The respondent purchaser sued for specific performance or damages.

The trial judge awarded damages for lost profits.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the finding of breach but allowed the appeal on the issue of mitigation.

The Court found that the respondent, a single-purpose company, admitted it had no intention of mitigating its damages and took no steps to do so, despite its parent company purchasing other comparable properties.

The judgment was set aside and nominal damages of $1 were substituted.

The Town of Oakville appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that stayed a zoning by-law against the respondents, who were growing crops on contaminated former refinery lands zoned industrial.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, thereby denying natural justice.

Furthermore, the Court held as a matter of law that 'farming' is a land use, not a 'normal farm practice', and the Farming and Food Production Protection Act cannot be used to introduce a new agricultural use on land where farming is prohibited by a valid zoning by-law.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner and Showline Limited appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an adjudicator's order granting access to records held by the City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO).

The central issue was whether TEDCO's officers were 'appointed or chosen by or under the authority of the council of the municipality' under s. 2(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Court of Appeal applied a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, finding that because the City is TEDCO's sole shareholder and appoints its directors, the officers appointed by those directors are chosen under the City's authority.

The appeals were allowed, and TEDCO was deemed subject to the Act.

The applicants sought judicial review of a racing commission decision dismissing their appeal of a stewards' ruling.

They argued the commission breached natural justice by failing to adequately address evidence that another jockey's whip caught in their horse's tail, causing interference.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the commission's reasons were adequate, the evidence was considered, and the factual findings were not patently unreasonable.

An ageing father gratuitously placed the bulk of his assets in joint accounts with his adult daughter.

Upon his death, the daughter claimed the balance through a right of survivorship, while her ex-husband claimed the assets formed part of the estate.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the presumption of resulting trust applies to gratuitous transfers to adult children, limiting the presumption of advancement to minor children.

However, the Court found sufficient evidence that the father intended to gift the right of survivorship to his daughter, rebutting the presumption of resulting trust.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO), was successful on an application for judicial review regarding a freedom of information request made by the respondent, Showline Limited.

TEDCO sought partial indemnity costs of $18,479.00 against Showline.

Showline argued that no costs should be awarded as it was merely exercising its statutory rights and the case raised novel issues of statutory interpretation.

The Divisional Court held that costs should follow the event, noting that Showline is a private commercial entity that mounted a vigorous response.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court found the requested amount fair and reasonable and awarded TEDCO $18,479.00 in costs against Showline.

The applicant, City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO), sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario (IPC) which found that TEDCO was deemed to be part of the City of Toronto under subsection 2(3) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The IPC had ordered the City to obtain records from TEDCO responsive to a freedom of information request.

The Divisional Court quashed the IPC's decision, holding that the adjudicator erred in interpreting the term 'officers' in subsection 2(3) to include 'directors'.

The Court found that TEDCO, incorporated under the Business Corporations Act, is not subject to the Act.

The appellants appealed a decision applying the doctrine of res judicata based on prior CCAA proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellants were neither parties nor privies in interest to the prior proceedings.

The court noted that the appellants only participated as witnesses and that respondents' counsel had previously indicated that findings in the CCAA proceedings would not affect proceedings against other parties.

The appellant, the deceased's son-in-law, appealed a trial decision that found the deceased intended to gift his investments to his daughter (the respondent) by placing them in joint ownership.

The appellant argued the investments should form part of the estate residue, of which he was a joint beneficiary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the deceased actually intended to gift the beneficial interest to his daughter, making it unnecessary to rely on the presumption of advancement or resulting trust.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the issue of unlawful possession of a booth had already been raised, considered, and determined in the respondent's favour during proceedings in New Jersey.

The issue of possession was fundamental and integral to the determination of the appellant's set-off and recoupment claim.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's appreciation of the previous Court of Appeal order and upheld the decision to dismiss the action against all defendants, including one who had not formally moved for dismissal, as it was the intent of the motion brought by the other defendants.

The appellant tenant breached a commercial lease by abandoning the premises.

The respondent landlord subsequently leased the property to a new tenant, with a 10-month overlap of the original lease term.

The tenant appealed the trial judge's calculation of damages, arguing the landlord received a benefit from avoiding a lengthy vacancy period.

The landlord cross-appealed regarding the deduction of tax consultant fees and the apportionment of rent-free periods and improvements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, finding the tenant's mitigation argument was not pleaded and relied on speculation.

The cross-appeal was allowed in part, permitting the landlord to deduct the 50% contingency fee paid to a tax consultant to obtain a property tax rebate.

Following the release of the appeal judgment, the appellants requested clarification on the effect of the judgment on two aspects of the trial judge's order for interest.

The Court of Appeal clarified that interest on the respondents' share of Vicbir's RDTOH remains at 6% per annum from January 1, 2001.

The Court also clarified that interest on the share of sums payable to one of the respondents should be calculated on the net amount owing after deducting the sum she owed for reacquired shares.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found oppressive conduct in the management of a family holding company and ordered the corporation to purchase the respondents' shares for cancellation.

The trial judge devised a valuation formula that included an unequal distribution of the corporation's capital dividend account to compensate the respondents for their share of the refundable dividend tax on hand.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's findings of oppression or his general valuation approach.

However, the Court allowed the respondents' cross-appeal in part, correcting a mathematical error in the trial judge's tax account formula to ensure the respondents were fully compensated for their pro rata share of the refundable dividend tax on hand.